Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Relinquishment Deed Executed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Case. Relinquishment deed executed by eldest male member as Karta is valid and binding on minor coparceners, and suit for declaration filed beyond limitation period is barred.

  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arises from a suit filed in 1994 by four younger sons of late M.C. Rudrappa seeking a declaration that a relinquishment deed dated 13th March 1969, executed by their eldest brother M.R. Rajashekar (the Karta) and their cousin M.P. Basavaraju in favour of their uncle Patel Mallegowda, was null and void. The suit property was part of joint Hindu family properties that had been partitioned in 1961. The plaintiffs contended that the relinquishment deed was void as it was executed without authority, particularly as Plaintiff No. 4 was a minor at the time. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and on merits, holding that the Karta had authority to execute the deed. The first appellate court reversed, holding the deed void and not barred by limitation. The High Court in second appeal restored the trial court's decision, ruling that the deed was not void ab initio and the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment. The Court held that under Hindu law, the Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property, including the undivided interest of minor coparceners, without prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as Sections 6 and 12 exclude the minor's undivided interest from the guardian's powers. The relinquishment deed was therefore valid and binding on all coparceners. On limitation, the Court found that the suit for declaration was filed beyond three years from the date when the right to sue first accrued, as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the deed since its execution or at least from the date of the earlier partition suit in 1981. The suit was thus barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Karta's Authority - Alienation of Joint Family Property - The Karta or head of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property, including the undivided interest of minor coparceners, without prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as Sections 6 and 12 of the Act exclude the minor's undivided interest in joint family property from the guardian's powers. (Paras 11-13)

B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 59 - Suit for Declaration - A suit for declaration that a deed is void or voidable must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Where the deed is voidable, the limitation period runs from the date of knowledge of the deed. In this case, the suit filed in 1994 challenging a 1969 relinquishment deed was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the deed well beyond three years. (Paras 14-20)

C) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 6, 8, 12 - Applicability to Joint Family Property - Section 8 of the HMG Act, requiring court permission for disposal of minor's immovable property, does not apply to the undivided interest of a minor in joint Hindu family property. The Karta or adult manager of the joint family can deal with such property without court sanction, as held in Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar. (Paras 11-13)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the relinquishment deed executed by the Karta on behalf of the joint Hindu family, including minor coparceners, is valid and binding; and whether the suit for declaration that the deed is null and void is barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the relinquishment deed was valid and the suit was barred by limitation. The Court held that the Karta had authority to execute the deed, and the suit filed in 1994 challenging a 1969 deed was beyond the limitation period under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Law Points

  • Karta's authority to alienate joint Hindu family property
  • Applicability of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
  • 1956 to joint family property
  • Limitation for declaration of voidable deeds
  • Article 58 and 59 of Limitation Act
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 20

Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017

2021-12-13

Sanjiv Khanna

M.R. Vinoda

M.S. Susheelamma (D) by LRs. and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court judgment dismissing suit for declaration that relinquishment deed is null and void.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that relinquishment deed dated 13th March 1969 is null and void and partition of suit property.

Filing Reason

Plaintiffs, younger sons of M.C. Rudrappa, challenged relinquishment deed executed by their eldest brother and cousin in favour of their uncle, claiming it was without authority and not binding on them.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed suit as barred by limitation and on merits; first appellate court decreed suit; High Court in second appeal restored trial court's decision.

Issues

Whether the relinquishment deed executed by the Karta on behalf of the joint Hindu family, including minor coparceners, is valid and binding? Whether the suit for declaration that the deed is null and void is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the relinquishment deed was void as it was executed without authority, especially as Plaintiff No. 4 was a minor, and the suit was not barred by limitation as the deed was void ab initio. Respondents argued that the deed was valid as executed by the Karta, and the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years from the date of knowledge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Karta of a joint Hindu family has the authority to alienate joint family property, including the undivided interest of minor coparceners, without prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as Sections 6 and 12 exclude the minor's undivided interest from the guardian's powers. A suit for declaration that a deed is void or voidable must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues; where the deed is voidable, limitation runs from the date of knowledge.

Judgment Excerpts

The position in Hindu Law is well settled. In Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others, this Court interpreting Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, has held that these two Sections are not to be viewed in isolation, albeit in harmony and conjunction, and when read together the intent is manifest that HMG Act does not envisage a natural guardian of an undivided interest of a Hindu minor in a joint Hindu family property. Thus, a Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of joint family property involving the undivided interest of the minor of the family therein.

Procedural History

Suit filed in 1994 in trial court; dismissed as barred by limitation and on merits. First appeal to Additional Sessions Judge decreed suit. Regular Second Appeal No. 1989 of 2006 to High Court of Karnataka allowed, restoring trial court's decision. Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017 to Supreme Court against High Court judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: 6, 8, 12
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 58, 59
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Relinquishment Deed Executed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Case. Relinquishment deed executed by eldest male member as Karta is valid and binding on minor coparceners, and suit for declaration filed beyond ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Condoning Delay in Arbitration Challenge. Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Held Absolute and Not Extendable Beyond 30 Days.